Pro-life at 51%

[Valerie]

Abortion in the United States:
Statistics and Trends

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade

Total Abortions since 1973

Downward Trend Continues

After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

Abortion in the United States

 

[Dr Grump]

I see your mother decided not to abort you..shame really fatass!

Federal dollars goes to planned parent hood and most of that money I'm willing to bet goes to abortions...a girl comes in and is thinking about getting a ******* abortion and they ease the girls guilt and they do not give her other options...if that isn't promoting fatass then...I guess maybe you should go visit and see if you can be aborted now.

Hey, if you wanna start insults Vinegar Tits, then have at. You get what you deserve.
I happen to agree with you, if you get knocked up and you want an abortion, you get it yourself (and the guy should pay towards it too). Do you know if the women are given options, or are you just guessing? Got any facts you wanna bring to the debate Fugly, or do you just make shit up as you go along?

 

[Anguille]

If a woman wants an abortion then fine, but to promote abortions and shit that has been done is OVER the ******* LINE.

Who the hell promotes abortion? I know of several women who have had abortions, and not one of them enjoyed the experience one iota...

Federal dollars asswipe! If a woman wants an abortion then make it expensive like an elective surgery and they foot the bill not the ******* tax payers! Maybe if it's expensive little molly and joey will take more precautions....you're a moron.

In other words lets go back to when the wealthy, who could afford to travel, got safe abortions and the not so wealthy got coathangers.
Please support your claim that fed money goes to subsidize abortion. Currently my taxes go to support unwanted children in a world where overpopulation is becoming a serious threat.

 

[Valerie]

"Planned Parenthood does more in one day to prevent unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion than politicians like Michele Bachmann do in a lifetime,” said Stanley.

Indeed, Planned Parenthood offers a range of services in addition to abortion services, including those that prevent the need for abortion: access to birth control, emergency contraception, pregnancy options counseling, sexuality education, and vasectomies and tubal ligations. Those services are in addition to a range of other reproductive health services such as screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; and menopause treatments.

Republicans Call for an End to Planned Parenthood's Federal Funding | RHRealityCheck.org

 

[DiamondDave]

A rat will always be a rat.. a human fetes even at a lesser developed statge will not remain that way, it will continue developing into a full grown human...

nice try

Actually many don't. Some abortions occur naturallly. It's called miscarriage.

And just because cancer or hemorrhage occurs naturally, causing death, does not make it OK to commit murder

 

[Chris]

Legalized abortion is one of the best ways to prevent crime....

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DiamondDave]

Frankly, I think it's mostly MEN who are so anti-abortion and if they ever had to actually give birth themselves, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I think that's probably true. I understand the number used to be something like 80% of anti-choice activists were male.

It's a control thing... the religious right hasn't been able to stand it since the pill was invented.

And the proof of that? The same people who fight re-productive choice don't want birth control made readily available...... or the morning after pill...

and they preach "abstinence only"... which doesn't work. and is the sex version of fire and brimstone.

Then the harlots are supposed to take "responsibility' for their choice while the dads skip town and don't pay child support...

leaving single moms as the largest single group on welfare.

but the people who fight against your right to control what you do with your body also don't want to pay for welfare either.... or for job training... or anything else that would make the lives of these women easier.

because it's all about exacting pennance for their transgressions.

Nice, but feeble, attempt at psychoanalysis

You simply keep skipping over the point of respecting and protecting innocent life... not vag envy...

And in actuality.. BOTH parents are supposed to provide and take care of the child.. whether it is the bastard or the ***** that skips town or whatever other scenario you wish to bring up

And again... all for voluntary charities and asking (not expecting) help from those charities..

 

[DiamondDave]

Again.. it is not about what you do with your uterus... You can stuff it with cottage cheese and paint the inside blue for all I care... this is about protecting an innocent life at the early stages of development

So why does innocent life at any other stage of deveopment not arrouse your compasion?

Hmmm.. I am for protecting anyone at any age against murder... and I am all for voluntary charitable support (and I give to many charities personally)

 

[Neser Boha]

Again.. it is not about what you do with your uterus... You can stuff it with cottage cheese and paint the inside blue for all I care... this is about protecting an innocent life at the early stages of development

So why does innocent life at any other stage of deveopment not arrouse your compasion?

Hmmm.. I am for protecting anyone at any age against murder... and I am all for voluntary charitable support (and I give to many charities personally)

You're an idealist you know... but the world is not an ideal place, never was, and in all probability, never will be... I for one, if I got pregnant, I would still keep the baby even if it weren't practical and I believe I'd make it work no matter what... however, I don't know what other women's situation is, what hardship do they have to face, what's going on in their heads, etc... therefore I have NO RIGHT to tell a woman who has an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy that she can't abort just because I'd never do that.

I place the mother's life ahead of the foetus/zygote... and not only in life threatening medical situations.

This I call realism...

Rhetorical question:

If you and your wife just conceived a child at the same time a war started in your country... would you choose to keep the baby and therefore endanger the life of your wife (unavailability of proper medical care, stress, flying bombs, etc.) and the future baby for your principles? Some people might feel that their life is a warzone (lack of medical insurance, bad financial situation, divorce, something that would make their life miserable if they had a baby at the same time) and a mistake happened... and what are they supposed to do now? Risk it all for YOUR principles?

That's immoral - imposing your set or principles on others' lives - lives that you have nothing to do with - whose faces you will probably never see and whose burden you will never share.

 

[DiamondDave]

So why does innocent life at any other stage of deveopment not arrouse your compasion?

Hmmm.. I am for protecting anyone at any age against murder... and I am all for voluntary charitable support (and I give to many charities personally)

You're an idealist you know... but the world is not an ideal place, never was, and in all probability, never will be... I for one, if I got pregnant, I would still keep the baby even if it weren't practical and I believe I'd make it work no matter what... however, I don't know what other women's situation is, what hardship do they have to face, what's going on in their heads, etc... therefore I have NO RIGHT to tell a woman who has an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy that she can't abort just because I'd never do that.

I place the mother's life ahead of the foetus/zygote... and not only in life threatening medical situations.

This I call realism...

Rhetorical question:

If you and your wife just conceived a child at the same time a war started in your country... would you choose to keep the baby and therefore endanger the life of your wife (unavailability of proper medical care, stress, flying bombs, etc.) and the future baby for your principles? Some people might feel that their life is a warzone (lack of medical insurance, bad financial situation, divorce, something that would make their life miserable if they had a baby at the same time) and a mistake happened... and what are they supposed to do now? Risk it all for YOUR principles?

That's immoral - imposing your set or principles on others' lives - lives that you have nothing to do with - whose faces you will probably never see and whose burden you will never share.

I place the importance of both lives as equal... but you have never seen me oppose the possibility of procedure to save the mother's life... HOWEVER, this is a VERY small % of the time that it is even a remote possibility... but even then I have seen choices made by mothers to sacrifice themselves for the life of the child growing within them

If I were married, my wife were pregnant, and I were called to war, it is no reason to punish or murder the unborn baby for convenience

We have a principle to protect life.. unfortunately we have a warped and selfish group that discounts the life of the ones that are least able to fend for themselves....

I am the dad of a little girl who was WAYYY premature... smaller than many children that have been aborted.. it was scary as crap... but amazing when a tiny little child like that, who was struggling to survive, craving the touch, human contact, and interaction...

Life first, personal convenience is MILES back from that

 

[DamnYankee]

I see your mother decided not to abort you..shame really fatass! (snipped)

Saw a similar comment earlier in this thread. Very conducive to making a point and changing opinions.... <sarcasm>

 

[Neser Boha]

Hmmm.. I am for protecting anyone at any age against murder... and I am all for voluntary charitable support (and I give to many charities personally)

You're an idealist you know... but the world is not an ideal place, never was, and in all probability, never will be... I for one, if I got pregnant, I would still keep the baby even if it weren't practical and I believe I'd make it work no matter what... however, I don't know what other women's situation is, what hardship do they have to face, what's going on in their heads, etc... therefore I have NO RIGHT to tell a woman who has an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy that she can't abort just because I'd never do that.

I place the mother's life ahead of the foetus/zygote... and not only in life threatening medical situations.

This I call realism...

Rhetorical question:

If you and your wife just conceived a child at the same time a war started in your country... would you choose to keep the baby and therefore endanger the life of your wife (unavailability of proper medical care, stress, flying bombs, etc.) and the future baby for your principles? Some people might feel that their life is a warzone (lack of medical insurance, bad financial situation, divorce, something that would make their life miserable if they had a baby at the same time) and a mistake happened... and what are they supposed to do now? Risk it all for YOUR principles?

That's immoral - imposing your set or principles on others' lives - lives that you have nothing to do with - whose faces you will probably never see and whose burden you will never share.

I place the importance of both lives as equal... but you have never seen me oppose the possibility of procedure to save the mother's life... HOWEVER, this is a VERY small % of the time that it is even a remote possibility... but even then I have seen choices made by mothers to sacrifice themselves for the life of the child growing within them

If I were married, my wife were pregnant, and I were called to war, it is no reason to punish or murder the unborn baby for convenience

We have a principle to protect life.. unfortunately we have a warped and selfish group that discounts the life of the ones that are least able to fend for themselves....

I am the dad of a little girl who was WAYYY premature... smaller than many children that have been aborted.. it was scary as crap... but amazing when a tiny little child like that, who was struggling to survive, craving the touch, human contact, and interaction...

Life first, personal convenience is MILES back from that

That's the difference... while I consider the life of a potential mother (me) as a priority, you consider the life of the fetus (potential, not necessarily future baby) equal to the life of the mother - no matter how developed the fetus is.

In my mind, the fetus's life grows in importance as it grows within a willing mother. Once it reaches 100% viability (birth), its life is equal to that of the mother. How about that.

I think that is quite a healthy approach. But I know that according to you it's sick... because as soon as the sperm hits the egg, the mother's life is not her own anymore and the worth of her life decreases as it is challenged by the life growing inside of her... she basically turns from an autonomous human being into a receptacle that should be forbidden by the law to spill its unwanted contents out...

Oh well... glad I don't live in the same country as you do

 

[DiamondDave]

Glad you are not in the same country as me as well.. When a person like you believes you can arbitrarily choose what value to put on an innocent life... at your whim and for whatever convenience you wish

What next, choosing that the value of the life of an elderly person, who cannot do for themselves, is also not equal if it burdens their children? You can just decide to off them because you don't want the responsibility or the inconvenience? Devaluing the worth of an autistic child with no means to take care of themself, so off to get executed?

No.. life is to be protected, even if you feel inconvenienced

 

[Newby]

your are making a caveat to your "leave individuals alone and let them make their own choice" ALREADY?!?! you DONT SAY!


Here's an idea: Why don't you excercise your rights to choose whom to **** in the first place and AVOID the abortion conflict altogether with a little responsibility? Is that too tough? Too much to consider? Womens suffrage didn't happen so that women could murder a fetus. enjoy your personal autonomy AND your personal responsibility. When your lifestyle requires the killing of a genetic human distinction then you might want to re-evaluate what choices, EXACTLY, were once the fuel of the womans rights movement.

Responbility is a dirty word. Whenever you look at all the issues that the left loves to push on everyone else, it always has something to do with taking care of people who have not been responsible for themselves in some way or another. It's a way to get their grubby little hands on everyone's money while trying to pretend that they're only doing what's 'morally' right for 'every' citizen. There's no choice involved when it comes to forcing others to follow what they think is morally right, they have no problem with using legislation to force others into following their morality whatsoever. That's why they have to intertwine abortion and religion so zealously, so they have a 'good' reason to not allow your morals to disrupt their agenda. Their morals are a completely different story, however. It's funny how when you talk about the left and its agenda, hypocrasy is always the word that comes to mind first.

Shogun, does it not give you pause that someone like Newby agrees with you?

'Someone like Newby'???? Actually, I agree with Shogun on several things and have stated so whenever I've had the opportunity. Your attempt at stereotyping is really quite amusing tho.

I wonder why a lot of people supporting 'choice' for a woman to kill her baby are 'only supporting it in the first trimester'? Really, if you support it, then support it all the way. By saying it's okay ONLY in the first trimester, aren't you basically stating that you really think it's immoral, but there's this little gray line that you're deciding to draw to make yourself feel better about your stance? If there is nothing morally wrong with abortion, then why not support it all the way?

 

[Newby]

Frankly, I think it's mostly MEN who are so anti-abortion and if they ever had to actually give birth themselves, it wouldn't even be an issue.

I think that's probably true. I understand the number used to be something like 80% of anti-choice activists were male.

It's a control thing... the religious right hasn't been able to stand it since the pill was invented.

And the proof of that? The same people who fight re-productive choice don't want birth control made readily available...... or the morning after pill...

and they preach "abstinence only"... which doesn't work. and is the sex version of fire and brimstone.

Then the harlots are supposed to take "responsibility' for their choice while the dads skip town and don't pay child support...

leaving single moms as the largest single group on welfare.

but the people who fight against your right to control what you do with your body also don't want to pay for welfare either.... or for job training... or anything else that would make the lives of these women easier.

because it's all about exacting pennance for their transgressions.

Wow, well-said.

I am pro life (with certain exceptions, most of which were argued here), but most of what you said is spot on. It's true: Most conservatives don't really care about the fetus. It's about the control. They aren't a culture of life. The Republican party is the culture of death.

Yeah, people should be able to go out and do whatever the hell they want with their lives and not take responsibility for any of their actions, and then rely on the money of people who have made touch choices and acted responsibly. We can legislate taking people's hard earned income away from them on the moral charge that we should be responsible for those who are not responsible for themselves, yet do nothing to curtail irresponsibility in our society. You want your cake and to eat it too. You want to tell people to use the 'poor' crutch, the 'race' crutch, etc.. as an excuse for not having done anything with their lives, so it's okay to not be responible, spit out as many babies as you like, kill them if you like, and the rest of society will just take care of you.

Jillian's argument makes no sense. I mean pick which way you want it, conservatives want to control your lives, but they don't want to have to pay for it? If we didn't want to have to pay for it, wouldn't we be all about abortion? The less to pay for, the better right? No, see that's how a person with a left point of view would look at it, not someone from the right. They see people as a drain on the 'system', another mouth to feed, another person to pay for. They see wealth as a limited pie to be divided and the more people eating from the pie, the less for them. Conservatives see wealth as a positive and ever growing commodity and every life as a potential person to add to the goodness of humanity. It has nothing to do with control, the left is all about control, just look at what they advocate in social programs all the way to whacked out environmentalism. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[catzmeow]

I wonder why a lot of people supporting 'choice' for a woman to kill her baby are 'only supporting it in the first trimester'?

I support abortion only in the first trimester, because the further along a baby goes to down the path towards independent sentience, the wronger it is to kill it.

I don't believe that a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a 40 week old fetus. Guess what? Most Americans don't.

 

[Newby]

So, it's morally okay to kill a 12 week old baby, but not a 40 week old baby?

 

[Anguille]

Legalized abortion is one of the best ways to prevent crime....

The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Abortion is also good for the environment. When there are more people than this planet can support we could well end up killing each other or dying of hunger. Maybe both.

Those who would have women endlessly pump out babies against their will, claiming it's because of their respect for life, only facilitate our possible extinction. It's quite perverse of them to call themselves pro life.

 

[Anguille]

So, it's morally okay to kill a 12 week old baby, but not a 40 week old baby?

Why are you talking about killing newborns?

 

[AllieBaba]

I wonder why a lot of people supporting 'choice' for a woman to kill her baby are 'only supporting it in the first trimester'?

I support abortion only in the first trimester, because the further along a baby goes to down the path towards independent sentience, the wronger it is to kill it.

I don't believe that a 12 week old fetus is equivalent to a 40 week old fetus. Guess what? Most Americans don't.

The wronger it is to kill it? So you admit you think it's okay to kill someone when you dictate their life is an impediment to yours? Provided they aren't as big as you, of course...?